Another case of your opinion not being the final say. If Barack Obama does not want to be called "black", I'm pretty sure you can't just say "Sorry, BO, you're black. Deal with it."

Oh, I get it. Now skin color is also determined the way burnsy and BL say sexuality is determined: You are whatever you say you are.

I'm still waiting to become the billionaire batpope, because that would be sweet, and I know it will happen because I said I'm the billionaire batpope and I am what I say I am according to burnsy and BL.

You're the one that effectively said "you are what you say you are" in terms of sexuality. You're the one that makes it an option. It would really help to advance the discussion if you would go the hell away, because everyone else can basically agree to the rest of the world's definition of homosexuality. Obviously you're born with a particular skin color. You're also born with a biological sexual preference, based, as I mentioned weeks ago, on the pheromone receptors you happen to possess. You can argue your alternative definition all you want, but it comes down to your word against everyone else's, and your opinions on many things have clearly demonstrated far too little critical thinking skills and discernment to give me any reason to consider your continual assertion that sexuality should be defined by choices instead of preferences.

You're the only one who says you're defined exclusively by choices. One could argue that based on his choices, Obama has decided to live a more "white" lifestyle - certainly a large number of blacks seem to think that. So your definition of what defines a human being might call him white, right? Or is that yet another trait that we can't define exclusively by choices?

And if being black is something biologically determined and you can't really get away from it, why is sexual preference - also biologically determined - different?

With the huge risk of drawing myself into another "discussion" with bis, I don't think he disagrees that attraction isn't a choice. I think his point is that you can be attracted to the same sex but you're only gay if you choose to have sex with the same sex. It's still stupid, just slightly different from what you're saying.

The problem is that I HAVE used critical thinking and discernment and have come to a conclusion different than your own, and you just can't handle that.

You think you're the king when it comes to those things and you just can't get how anyone else could feel differently than you do. Well, someone does, and if anything they've used MORE critical thinking and discernment than you have.

So get off your high horse and stop pretending anyone who disagrees with you can't think critically or use discernment.

You're the only one who says you're defined exclusively by choices.

Yes, when it comes to non-biological traits. Obviously skin color and ethnicity don't fall into those categories.

And if being black is something biologically determined and you can't really get away from it, why is sexual preference - also biologically determined - different?

The difference is that sexuality is not biologically determined, as your choices that dictate your sexuality do not necessarily have to follow your biological attraction.

For example, you could be more attracted to women but decide you only want to be with men in romantic and/or sexual situations. This clearly shows that your decision of who to be with indicates your sexuality rather than your simple statement that you feel more attracted to the opposite gender.

Also, race and attraction aren't analogous because race is a physical thing while attraction isn't.

That's essentially what we do when we refer to a white person as Caucasian. If you don't like using African American, use black. No one is likely to be offended.

Caucasian is a stupid term, too. I don't use it and I don't use African American.

In fact, I usually don't make references to race, but if I must do so for some reason, I use the terms white and black as they are simple distinctions.

Logic says that the Earth is slightly older than 10,000 years, but that didn't stop biz from ignoring it.

That argument wasn't about the use of logic but about the idea that there is evidence for more than one theory regarding the age of the earth. However, I'm not going to rehash that argument here as it would not only be pointless but completely off topic. As such, I won't be responding to anyone (that includes you, BL) whose comments are about that discussion.

Also, if you missed it, biz compared himself to Galileo.

The comparison was accurate as it was made. Then again, if you're half as smart as you think you are, you already knew that.

That's essentially what we do when we refer to a white person as Caucasian. If you don't like using African American, use black. No one is likely to be offended.

Caucasian is a stupid term, too. I don't use it and I don't use African American.

In fact, I usually don't make references to race, but if I must do so for some reason, I use the terms white and black as they are simple distinctions.

Logic says that the Earth is slightly older than 10,000 years, but that didn't stop biz from ignoring it.

That argument wasn't about the use of logic but about the idea that there is evidence for more than one theory regarding the age of the earth. However, I'm not going to rehash that argument here as it would not only be pointless but completely off topic. As such, I won't be responding to anyone (that includes you, BL) whose comments are about that discussion.

Also, if you missed it, biz compared himself to Galileo.

The comparison was accurate as it was made. Then again, if you're half as smart as you think you are, you already knew that.

Ok. Some people prefer to use Caucasian and African American. They are interchangeable with black and white. This isn't an argument.

Ok. Some people prefer to use Caucasian and African American. They are interchangeable with black and white. This isn't an argument.

The terms Caucasian and African American add unnecessary (not to mention ridiculous) complexity to a simple issue of distinction, while the terms black and white do not do so to nearly the same extent.

Actually, logic and credible evidence point to an Earth that is older than 10,000 years.

In this topic, I used logical reasoning to show how sexuality is defined by choices rather than attraction, since other statuses given to people are also defined in that manner.

In the previous topic some of you keep referencing (even though it is off topic here), no such logical reasoning was even attempted.

You're just throwing around the word "logic" here and now because you think it adds strength to what you're saying, but all it really does is show you don't understand what logic means (luckily for you, I just explained it for you, but you'll probably miss that).

Also, you say it was "credible evidence" - great, except your saying something doesn't make it true. Neither does you saying something in bold and underlined type.

So while you say there was "credible evidence" for an Earth older than 10,000 years, I say there is "credible evidence" on both sides. You say one thing, I say another, so it's a wash.

Ok. Some people prefer to use Caucasian and African American. They are interchangeable with black and white. This isn't an argument.

The terms Caucasian and African American add unnecessary (not to mention ridiculous) complexity to a simple issue of distinction, while the terms black and white do not do so to nearly the same extent.

Actually, logic and credible evidence point to an Earth that is older than 10,000 years.

In this topic, I used logical reasoning to show how sexuality is defined by choices rather than attraction, since other statuses given to people are also defined in that manner.

In the previous topic some of you keep referencing (even though it is off topic here), no such logical reasoning was even attempted.

You're just throwing around the word "logic" here and now because you think it adds strength to what you're saying, but all it really does is show you don't understand what logic means (luckily for you, I just explained it for you, but you'll probably miss that).

Also, you say it was "credible evidence" - great, except your saying something doesn't make it true. Neither does you saying something in bold and underlined type.

So while you say there was "credible evidence" for an Earth older than 10,000 years, I say there is "credible evidence" on both sides. You say one thing, I say another, so it's a wash.

You quoted my post, but did you READ it? I'm guessing not, because you seem to have missed this:

I simply wouldn't discuss it with you because you ran away when I gave you a chance before that, and I wasn't going to play your games, and I wont' discuss it with you ever.

I'm not sure you ever block me, but if you do, we both know it's only for one reason: I destroy your arguments every time you attempt to argue with me about anything. Then you run away and cry about it for a while, and when you feel better you come back and want a rematch.

So go ahead and "block" me. When you're done crying and want to try again, come on back and I'll have fun watching you struggle to argue with me again.

You're just throwing around the word "logic" here and now because you think it adds strength to what you're saying, but all it really does is show you don't understand what logic means (luckily for you, I just explained it for you, but you'll probably miss that).

Actually, when I'm throwing around the word "logic" in reference to you and/or your posts, it's entirely because I'm making fun of you. Just want to make that clear, so there's no misunderstanding going forward.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/9/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):That was quick. The pages are much easier to read on my phone without 4,000 word essays clogging up the forum.

Words. I'm speaking words because if I use words like these words that I'm typing now, then it will appear that the words I am typing in word typing fashion would appear wordy, and wordy is good for wordy points in making my point in words. More words here. And then more words here. Words are important, because words words words words words see I'm smart for using words as many words as I can. Also, if you didn't see the words I typed before, I have more words here. After this sentence are more words, and now it looks like the words are important words because the words are wordy and that means I'm smart and wordy. Words are good. I type more words like these words here and the words following these words because words help me with words and words are good. After I type these words, I will type more wordy words. Also, I know I said the words I'm about to say next, but if I say the words again, it will mean I'm more right because words are good. After I type these words, I will type more wordy words. In word form. Lots of words.

New paragraph for more words. I can make a new paragraph to type more words to say the same words I said before in word form, although I may take the words I used prior to this paragraph and use the words I'm speaking about and in a wordy way to rearrange the words to make the words seem like I'm saying more words but different words in a different way to make a better wordy point in words. Words are good in this way. Also I make take words and tell you the words I'm using are different in wordy definition than the words you think they mean. The words may mean words in different words, but words are wrong than what words you think they are in words. More words. Also, words here. And words here and then more words.

Here are more words in a different paragraph with many words. I'm saying even more words here and then I'll say more words after this wordy sentences with words inside of the sentence with words, as in this sentence with words inside the wordy sentence with words in it. Here I'm writing these words. And with these words you will wonder why the words you're reading are words you've read in the wordy word sentence with words in other wordy sentences in the wordy paragraph with many words in the wordy sentences you've seen words in earlier.